Posted on 03/09/2006 11:30:41 PM PST by Tim Long
Digital image of 'Ararat Anomaly' has researchers taking closer look
A new, high-resolution digital image of what has become known as the "Ararat Anomaly" is reigniting interest in the hunt for Noah's Ark.
Satellite image of 'Ararat Anomaly,' taken by DigitalGlobe's QuickBird Satellite in 2003 and now made public for the first time (courtesy: DigitalGlobe)
The location of the anomaly on the northwest corner of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey has been under investigation from afar by ark hunters for years, but it has remained unexplored, with the government of Turkey not granting any scientific expedition permission to explore on site.
But the detail revealed by the new photo from DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite has a man at the helm of the probe excited once again.
"I've got new found optimism ... as far as my continuing push to have the intelligence community declassify some of the more definitive-type imagery," Porcher Taylor, an associate professor in paralegal studies at the University of Richmond, told Space.com.
For more than three decades, Taylor has been a national security analyst, and has also served as a senior associate for five years at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
"I'm calling this my satellite archaeology project," Taylor said.
Space.com reports the project has been combining the photographic resources of QuickBird with GeoEye's Ikonos spacecraft, Canada's Radarsat 1, as well as declassified aerial and satellite images snapped by U.S. intelligence agencies.
While it's quite possible the item of interest could simply be a natural ridge of rock, snow and ice, Taylor says there's also a chance it could be something manmade.
"I had no preconceived notions or agendas when I began this in 1993 as to what I was looking for," he said. "I maintain that if it is the remains of something manmade and potentially nautical, then it's potentially something of biblical proportions."
The anomaly remains ensconced in glacial ice at an altitude of 15,300 feet, and Taylor says the photos suggest it's length-to-width ratio is close to 6:1, as indicated in the Book of Genesis.
The U.S. Air Force took the first photographs of the Mt. Ararat site in 1949. The images allegedly revealed what seemed to be a structure covered by ice, but were held for years in a confidential file labeled "Ararat Anomaly."
The new image was actually taken in 2003, but has never been revealed to the public until now.
Arking up the wrong tree?
Meanwhile, there are others who believe Noah's Ark has already been found, and tourists can actually visit it on a mountain next to Ararat.
Some believe this is Noah's Ark, already found on a mountain next to Mt. Ararat (courtesy: wyattmuseum.com)
The late Ron Wyatt, whose Tennessee-based foundation, Wyatt Archaeological Research, purported the ark has already been found at Dogubayazit, Turkey, some 12-15 miles from Ararat, noting Genesis states the ark rested "upon the mountains of Ararat," not mountain.
Is this a hair from a large cat aboard Noah's Ark? (photo: Richard Rives, wyattmuseum.com)
Wyatt's website is filled with on-location photographs and charts promoting its case with physical evidence including radar scans of bulkheads on the alleged vessel, deck timber and iron rivets, large "drogue" stones which are thought to have acted as types of anchors, and even some animal hair inside, possibly from a large cat like a lion or tiger.
A flood of doubt
However, there's been no shortage of critics from both scientific and Christian circles who think the Dogubayazit site is erroneous.
Lorence Collins, a retired geology professor from California State University, Northridge, joined the late David Fasold, a one-time proponent of the Wyatt site, in writing a scientific summary claiming the location is "bogus."
"Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation," said the 1996 paper published in the Journal of Geoscience Education. "It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it."
The Answers in Genesis website provides an in-depth report attempting to debunk any validity the Dogubayazit site has, and concludes by stating:
"[A]s Christians we need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have."
Officials with Wyatt Archaeological Research remain unfazed in the face of such criticism.
"The site ... is actually something that you can look at. Not some made up story that no one is quite able to reach but something that is really there," said president Richard Rives. "It is a 'boat-shaped object' composed of material containing organic carbon, which is what is found in petrified wood. ...
"While there is more research that needs to be done at the site, there is a substantial amount of evidence that would indicate that the Wyatt site is not a natural object. ...
"Today, everyone wants to tell us how to think. We, at Wyatt Archaeological Research, do not do that. We just present the evidence that we have and let each individual make his own decision."
In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of Noah and the ark, and Jesus Christ and the apostles Paul and Peter all make reference to Noah's flood as an actual historical event.
'Noah's Ark' by Pennsylvania artist Edward Hicks, 1846
According to Genesis, Noah was a righteous man who was instructed by God to construct a large vessel to hold his family and many species of animals, as a massive deluge was coming to purify the world which had become corrupt.
Genesis 6:5 states: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Noah was told by God to take aboard seven pairs of each of the "clean" animals – that is to say, those permissible to eat – and two each of the "unclean" variety. (Gen. 7:2)
Though the Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it also mentions "the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."
The ark then "rested" upon the mountains of Ararat, but it was still months before Noah and his family – his wife, his three sons and the sons' wives – were able to leave the ark and begin replenishing the world.
"It's a rock cliff face."
Looks that way to me too.
My answer... BOTH ;-)
That's all it is..Its a legend .
The best book, The Ark of Noah, was by David Fasold who now repudiates his idea that what he found was the ark. It did, however, appear to be an actual artifact (well, archeological site since whatever it was had decomposed and was partially buried. It did, though, contain quite a lot of iron). Ironically, it was in the Ararat range, but not on "Mt. Ararat" and was dynamited by folks who were on their way to Mt. Ararat to find what they thought was the "real" ark photographed earlier in the century. At least this guy's book brought together a lot of interesting historical ark-related material from the Near East, including various flood stories, and posited a craft that was at least plausible in a way that other descriptions have not been. They found across the region a number of very large anchor stones as well as sarcophagi and other ancient artwork depicting ark-related themes.
I doubt that you can find any "unclassified" government source confirming that. You might find "leaked" info, but I don't know if that is true, altho I have heard it for quite a while, now.
Care to tell me how all them cold blooded snakes found their way back to Africa?
Did the pandas walk back to China?
What did they eat?
Did the tigers kill any of the other animals? Mighty cold at the top of that mountain.
Like I said, Creationism is for empty headed luddites who feel threatened by any new thought or discovery.
Turns out Google Earth is only accurate to within three years. I used to joke with people while looking at it, saying "Go outside and wave."
No, abiogenesis is a joke. Good luck with that one.
I don't know if your lol was tongue in cheek or at my statement. However, I'll give your statements a rounding Ha Ha Ha. In a pigs eye.
That ship looks considerably larger than 300 cubits by 50 cubits.
LOL! I'll add that we should throw Babara Eden as "Jeanie" into the bunch. Awwww yeah!
Thinking back to my grade school science classes I remember something called the water cycle. Water is evaporated, then condensation leads to precipitation which is either absorbed into the ground or runs off into the sea or other body of water, and the whole process starts all over again. The long and short of it is that it's pretty much a closed cycle. We're not making any more water, just reusing the water we have on the planet currently. So if we accept that then where did the additional moisture come from to cause enough rain to cover the earth to a depth of at least 15000 feet. And where did all that moisture go afterwards?
Carolyn
See the guy in post 72 since I seem to have a closed mind, it so closed I don't know what absolute minimalism is.
My friend, I'm certainly not threatened by you or your ridiculous theory. I feel sad for you that you worship and hold dear fossils and bones,and make up fables of your own to explain how we got here. Sad really.
A person like yourself that believes that we all came from a single celled organism should not label people of faith empty headed.
As to your profound questions on Noah, the simple answer is...by the power of God.
Can a donkey talk? One did in the bible. Can the sun stand still in the sky? It did in the bible. Can a man be raised from the dead? It happened in the bible.
If man can put a man on the moon, I think God could save his creation in a ship.
A life without faith is an empty one, no amount of evolving will change that.
Good luck with your new fossil find, I can't wait.
Looks like a plain ol' rock to me.
A helicopter made a precarious rescue at one of the camps down the mountain. It did not land on top.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.